The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and ten months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court convicted the Defendant of embezzlement and the charges of fraud by misunderstanding of facts or understanding of legal principles as follows.

1) As to embezzlement, the Defendant is limited to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”).

A) The fact that the Defendant disposed of one unit of D machine learning center and stampping center, respectively, while paying lease fees according to the lease agreement with the Defendant is recognized. However, after disposing of the stamp, the Defendant notified the fact of sale to D and agreed on the method that the Defendant would continue to pay and settle the remainder of the lease fees despite the above disposition. Since the Defendant continued to pay the lease fees according to the above agreement, it shall be deemed that D’s ex post facto approval for the sale of the stamp was made. Furthermore, in relation to the disposition of the machine learning center, even though the supplier of the machine learning center agreed to directly pay the purchase fees to the Defendant while purchasing the machine learning center and settle the lease fees, it is nothing more than that of the victims to use the said purchase fees for debt payment to other creditors. In full view of the aforementioned circumstances, each Defendant cannot be deemed as having been aware of the intention of embezzlement and illegal acquisition of the goods to receive money from the victims, as he did not have the ability to receive money from the victims as at the time of the sale of the goods.